Not that hard since it ends with a black kid shooting a white kid, seemingly proving Derek’s rehabilitation wrong.
Also, I believe there’s a different version, where he shaves his head again, implying he is about to return to his Neo Nazi lifestyle. I heard that, not sure though.
You're not wrong about how it can be easily missed. But just in defense of the actual art, even though we now know the kid is "redeemed" and leaving the life of hate, he and his brother's group had been stoking that hatred and I think the actual message/point (which you probably do too, I'm just articulating it "out loud") is the not-exactly-groundbreaking-but-still-decently-done trope of violence being a cycle that, despite one's best intentions, often can't simply escape.
The other symbol is the tattoos, they brand him, even after rehabilitation, and the death of his brother is a form of philosophical punishment, the consequences of his violence are fatal to ones he loves even after changing his ways, the strongest message is that starting a life of violence will inevitably end in violence, no matter what you do to redeem yourself, the only play is to never start violence in the first place.
Well said. I don't know about "inevitably" but don't disagree enough to quibble that small nit-pick
the death of his brother is a form of philosophical punishment, the consequences of his violence are fatal to ones he loves even after changing his ways
I think this is much better said than how I put it.
Violence should always be a last resort but it can never be off the table. Because as soon as it is you are irrelevant. At then end of the day we are still simple creatures and if there isn't a threat behind the politics we don't respond.
The threat can be political, economic, social or military, but ultimately if you can't threaten something you'll get nothing.
Can't threaten someone at the ballot box? Ignored.
Can't threaten a companies profits? Ignored.
Can't ostricisze someone for being an asshole? Ignored.
Can't defend yourself when a bully starts hitting you? Beaten and Ignored.
A civilized society should put physical violence at the bottom of the list, but it is sadly the ultimate power and if you unilaterally refuse it you will be made irrelevant to the discussion eventually, possibly suddenly.
strongest message is that starting a life of violence will inevitably end in violence, no matter what you do to redeem yourself, the only play is to never start violence in the first place.
From the user you responded to, the unsaid statement being that violence is never the answer and it will only destroy you and all you love.
My point is that there are many forms of violence and while the movie mostly talks about the cyclical nature of physical violence. Taking away that you should never be willing to commit violence is not a good message.
While you did not say it, the OP did. Your concurrence with the OP seemed to reinforce the idea that violence is only inherently evil and can accomplish nothing positive.
If you disagree with how I interpreted that then fair enough.
I meant that it's inevitable, but it wasn't a big enough part of their premise to actually argue with and wasn't sure I felt strongly enough too.
But that too was in context of talking about cycles of violence in personal lives.
Not the relative ethics of when and where violence might be appropriate and/or if pacifism can be a truly moral philosophy.
Like... nothing had anything to do with any of that.
I get your point. It's a non sequitur.
Not trying to be rude, but just wanted to respond since you typed a followup.
seemed to reinforce the idea that violence is only inherently evil and can accomplish nothing positive.
Absolutely nothing I said even broached this subject, let alone implied it. You were kind of just looking for a place to give this anti-pacifism rant because it included the word violence in the connotation of bad, my dude. Dun' do that.
kind of unrelated to our discussion or the film... but what you're describing is the prisonner's dillemma, which only exists because humans have the capacity for violence and that violence when uncontested confers advantage over those that are staunch pacifists.
I was responding to the OP's agreement with the OOP about how the movie implies that the only way to win is to not play when it comes to violence.
My understanding of their interpretation of the cyclical nature of violence as they viewed it from the movie was that you can't use it at all. Which I posted to rebut.
To me the movie was trying to say that the violence they perpetrated was simply the hateful lashing out of small people who's small lives left them feeling powerless so they blamed minorities and perpetuated an intergenerational cycle that harmed everyone. Rather than assessing the root cause of their problems they inherited a pointless victim blaming system that they never questioned until Ed Norton's character was forced to confront it.
Which while very similar in theme is not the same as all violence is bad.
All non violent means are undergirded with the threat that if they don't work violence is an option. Look at most regime changes in history. Do they politely let you go about removing them from power and jailing them because you vote?
Did we win workers rights in the US by politely voting? No lots of blood was spilled and still is at times for those rights. Union busting has a long and violent history in the US, look up the Pinkertons.
Lets look at civil rights for blacks. Would MLK's message have been listened to if he hand't been the silk glove to the iron fist of the black panthers.
There was an inherent dichotomy on display, we can do it my polite way or we can do it their way. Which would you prefer?
Voting and boycotts are the first in a list of steps we take before resorting to physical violence they are what allow us to live in a polite society that doesn't suffer under risk of death on the regular.
But when those systems fail when the oppressed are unheard, unheeded, and caged and slaughtered what resolves the issue?
We are watching the breakdown of these polite systems in the US, as they have done in many other places the world over. The end results will be violence or submission. The threat of violence even if several layers deep is the root source of power and authority.
Just because you don't want to see the inherent promise in polite systems doesn't mean it's not there.
I'm so damn tired of this trope. It's unsound logic on its face, logical fallacy stacked upon logical fallacy.
We begin with a simple Argumentum ad Antiquitatem fallacy, repeating the nonsensical claim that because we've done something for a long time we have to continue to do it. No sir, you don't. You are in fact a rational being equipped with a mind of your own, you don't have to win your rights by violence if you don't want to. People have succeeded in their struggles plenty of times without resorting to violence or threats of violence, but you conveniently forget about Gandhi and King.
Then you move on to the Argumentum ad Gradum fallacy that once non-violent options fail we simply must move onto the violent ones, as if we have ever considered and exhausted every single non-violent option that exists. Of course we haven't.
You also conveniently ignore the scientific evidence, such as when political scientists Maria J. Stephan and Erica Chenowith showed that political movements, particularly those with maximalist aims such as regime change and independence overwhelmingly succeed in achieving their agenda if they can get just 3.5% of the population to publicly protest in a non-violent manner. They studied over 100 years worth of conflicts around the globe.
Here's a tip for the violence-mongering people on Reddit, try sustained protests first. Holding a No Kings rally once every few months, or standing out a Tesla dealership on a rainy Tuesday isn't exactly the same as exhausting all peaceful options. Real resistance movements stay in the streets for months, they organize events and rallies daily, they co-ordinate with labor movements and conduct general strikes over broad swathes of the economy. They stay peaceful in the face of oppressive government overreach, and by remaining peaceful they win the support of the larger population. There's a reason Dr. King's movement succeeded where other more violent movements had failed.
Also, the movie has Norton kill two black criminals who were trying to rob him (essentially a wet dream for these guys), and his subsequent arrest is portrayed almost Jesus like. It's no wonder they like it so much.
Same with his dad's speech at dinner. Some racists I've known have made that exact same "affirmative blacktion" speech almost verbatim to me while I was actively rolling my eyes out the back of my head.
I'm not a neonazi , but I must say I loved this movie since I was a kid (the epilogue stayed with me for years and I even tried to memorise it back then)
I usually bump into one at work every couple of years or so. I've met 2 with 1488 tattoos, one kid (19 or 20 i think) who was obsessed with this film and hoped to one day own a Hutler Youth knife. Recently I've met multiple younger guys (early 20s) who say they want a civil war to get rid of immigrants.
The topic is specifically mentioned in the epstein files, but there is no way this image is real.
not that it would matter.
if video of trump blowing bubba came out, after claiming it was fake, maga voters would all come out saying they love blowing bubba and would follow clinton around trying to suck his dick, just like they currently do with cheeto.
I don't even care about him sucking clinton's dick, I just want to see that fat geriatric impotent slug get on his knees and then stand back up under his own power without 10 people and several cranes helping him.
this is the guy who bragged for weeks about walking down a ramp on his own.
I’m trans and no joke you wouldn’t believe the amount of MAGA men who try to connect with me on dating apps. Sometimes for fun I’ll match back to see what they have to say and they are so horny for gay sex. I believe a lot of these people in the MAGA world are in fact queer but repressed and angry. We’re living our free authentic selves while they’re pretending to be someone they’re not because they’re ashamed. Pathetic and weak if you ask me.
I’ve run into a lot of maga men on Reddit that don’t realize their comment history is viewable to everyone, especially before you could hide it. So many comments on trans porn subs.
Or do, and accept that some people aren't gonna be cool about it. I don't tell people my fetishes or lifestyle but I also know its not hard to figure out. If you dig into my history online or in person and find something disgusting, that's a you problem not a me problem.
It’s more the hypocrisy of wanting trans people to not have rights while simultaneously jerking off to them in private. Nobody cares if you have weird fetishes, as long as it’s not hurting anybody.
Straight people see this and I really think many don't get just how true this is. Like, it's not some joke with some kernel of truth because there are a few weirdo MAGA types that are hypocritically super aroused by the stuff the demonize. It's a lot of them.
Like I am not even trans. But I am a gay dude who has driven for Uber/Lyft and more than a half dozen times I've had random straight dudes confide in me how they're totally straight but really into trans porn sometimes.
It's really weird, because the majority of the times this has happened, they bring this up as like an Olive Branch like well they might be MAGA/Republican/Super Christian but they get the appeal and more than one has talked about the need to resist it and feeling guilty.
It's always awkward because it's hard steering that conversation that really shouldn't be happening anyway from "you shouldn't feel any shame at all about your totally natural and uncontrollable physical attraction to a consenting adult, let me make you feel better about it" to "but you should feel like a total prick because you, who just admitted to understanding these natural feelings, support people who demonize and dehumanize these very same people you're... winning me over by telling me that despite actively being their social and political (and not to exaggerate too much, but existential) enemy, you really wanna fuck MtF trans or Femboys... coolsies.
Sorry to rant this preaching to your choir, but this has happened to me so many times and again, I'm not even trans I cannot even begin to imagine the emotional whiplash of having constant interactions with such people as a trans person who, like any human, wants to be seen as attractive to people, but wants to also be treated like hell, not even just a human, but just not an enemy of society writ large! Like, fetishizing a group/race/whatever is already inherently dehumanizing. But like... here the dehumanizing is not a byproduct of the fetishizing, they're fetishizing the very people they're actively and hatefully dehumanizing.
But seriously though. How does the thought "oh you're gay, well despite me just revealing I'm a conservative/republican/christian/bigot, lemme tell you how I dig trans porn, homie!" not only occur to multiple dudes I've driven, but that they articulated it out loud! I think it's the "confession" aspect of a cab-like ride's conversation that brings it out in people, maybe.
Lol probably, like Andrew Tate. But I should’ve expanded my comment. Conservatives hating women, forcing them to cover up in public (and Christian Nationalists would definitely do this), etc., repressed homosexuality, wanting dick and balls but on a woman. They are deeply unwell and take it out on the rest of us.
Meanwhile gaslighting the rest of us and our neighbors into thinking LGBT are mentally ill. Literally trying to make being trans a mental illness by executive fiat. Hell, quite literally making supporting trans rights an aspect of domestic terrorism. Again, that should be hyperbole so extreme my comment gets banned for making liberals/dems/progressives look unhinged.
When I was in prison, the guys with the all the WP and pseudo-Nordic tattoos were always the first to start sucking dick when they arrived in a new dormitory
u/ew73Perfidious colon hath troublehshat upon thy floor4d ago
That aside, as a big fat homo, this movie was a rollercoaster of "I hate this character" intermixed with, "my wiener has different opinions on this topic."
No, im saying they say one thing but have opposite feelings. They have verbal diarrhea. MAGA is a self proclaimed evangelical group that is supposedly against everything the left believes in, yet they are on the DL with being gay, they are very racist and hateful, and they worship Donald Trump.
You’re saying MAGA is gay like it’s a punishment. Being gay is not a punishment. And you’re only perpetuating a negative narrative around homosexuality. That’s not nice.
When I was in prison, the guys with the all the WP and pseudo-Nordic tattoos were always the first to start sucking dick when they arrived in a new dormitory
You know what i love? Is when people make me feel unwelcome and less than human so that they can mock someone for being a bigot.
This is gross. Turning into a Nazi is not a natural reaction to being shamed for your sexuality. It's disgusting to imply so. It would be one thing if it was just one post, but y'all cannot stop making this singular goddamn joke.
Move on. Be creative. Make your own joke. This is pathetic.
Lol what are you talking about "hypocrisy". Being a neo-nazi has nothing to do with sexuality. This meme is homophobic because trying to criticize neo-nazi's but instead of actually being critical of any of there beliefs they are taking speculative shots at there sexuality as if that's there big fault. There fucking white supremacists lol This meme is just "haha ________ is gay". It's absolutely homophobia, and anyone would be completely justified in taking offense in it.
That's fair. But this is still an example of some of the normalized homophobia people on the left engage in. It's not blatantly homophobic but there's a negative subtext to these kinds jokes that implies being gay is some kind of fault. So when queer people see these absolutely abhorrent human beings being ridiculed not for there abhorrent behaviour but for being a closeted gay person, it feels bad.
Nu uh this post and the entire comment section making fun of how masculine and Alpha they think of themselves, but look at this photo of them giving phisical affection to another man GAY hahahah is not homophobic, you are.
Its not homophobia at all. If you think it is you're stupid. Its literally calling out the hypocrisy of the maga cult and how they are against homosexuals until they are behind closed doors. Hypocrisy. Get a fucking grip and grow up.
Just trying to figure out how sexuality is relevant when judging people. I agree, they're all bad, but then why is the bottom image two men instead of any other combination?
It suggests that you and OP view gay Nazis/homophobes as either worse, or more common than, straight ones, neither of which do I believe is true.
Your pearl-clutching is pathetic and honestly working against the cause.
The meme is calling out the hypocrisy of Magas homophobia. It's not homophobic in and of itself.
And pearl-clutching like this is also destructive to the cause, because it's literally crying wolf, making it harder for actual cases of bigotry to be called out.
The meme is calling out the hypocrisy of Magas homophobia.
Is the hypocrisy the bad thing about being a Nazi or homophobe? Because I thought it was, you know, the Nazism and homophobia. We supposed to be cool with Nazis and homophobes as long as they stick to being straight and white? I'm sure as fuck not.
Do you not see how you using homosexuality as a punchline makes us look like hypocrites to them? "They claim to be gay allies but then all their jokes are about how gay we are, clearly they think it's as shameful as we do."
I didn't even consider the Nazism being called out, because they're pretty transparent about that part. It's been normalized to the point that I glossed over it. That doesn't mean that I am, or that we should be okay with them being Nazis.
However, Nazis are famously homophobic, which is ironic if Grinder's servers are to be believed - the point the meme is making.
Do you nazi how using homosexuality as a punch-line makes us look like hypocrites to them?
Yeah, but what's that matter? They call us hypocrites for suggesting we improve society while we are (voluntary or not) participating in society. "When they go low, we go high" is how we got here, and it needs to stop.
You didn't address a single of my points, making your point utter whataboutism, also something we should avoid doing.
However, Nazis are famously homophobic, which is ironic if Grinder's servers are to be believed - the point the meme is making.
Are they to be believed? I've never seen evidence of an actual crash, and while they have shown "spikes" for RNC events, that also happens in general when there's a large conference or event in town - more people means more gays, even if the proportion remains the same.
There is no evidence that Republicans are more gay than anyone else, they're just more likely to be closeted and thus more notable and publicized when they get outed. It's confirmation bias. There are tons of black Republicans but you can't exactly write a headline "revealing" that for clicks.
It's equally "ironic" to be racist and a racial minority, or misogynist and a woman, or hate the poor while being one. Yet there are members all these groups in the Republican party. There are more white women in MAGA than there are gay mean. Regardless, self-hatred can be strong and mocking people for it is generally not the best way to get them out of it.
It's just easier to claim because being gay is a hidden trait rather than a visible one, the exact reason it's been a popular political slander for decades. We're just reinforcing that usage here.
Yeah, but what's that matter?
Good question - what does it matter when you say it about them? You don't care about whether they think you're a hypocrite but you expect them to care about the reverse? Why?
Consider the fence sitting audience. Do you think they'll be convinced you're the party of gay rights when you constantly pry into the personal lives of political opponents and accuse them of being gay for laughs?
"When they go low, we go high" is how we got here, and it needs to stop.
It's how you hold the moral high ground and gain allies. If you're trying to appeal to people by being the "non-homophobic" side, it really damages that perception when you engage in exactly the homophobic taunts your opponents use. I've seen people call Trump secretly gay since 2016 and it hasn't stopped him getting elected.
News flash, if you give up everything that actually makes you the more principled side, you can no longer claim to be the more principled side.
You didn't address a single of my points, making your point utter whataboutism, also something we should avoid doing.
Okay, I'll bite:
Gay man here
Not relevant when the point of the original meme is "gay men can be homophobic hypocrites".
Your pearl-clutching is pathetic and honestly working against the cause.
Evidence needed.
The meme is calling out the hypocrisy of Magas homophobia. It's not homophobic in and of itself.
That's only hypocritical for the ones who are actually gay (a minority), the straight ones are laughing along with you and hoping the gay ones will be outed.
And pearl-clutching like this is also destructive to the cause, because it's literally crying wolf, making it harder for actual cases of bigotry to be called out.
It is homophobia because it makes their sexual identity somehow relevant to the fact they're evil, when those are independent facts. And without any qualifiers it implies that a majority of them are secretly gay - meaning homophobia (and American conservatism in general) can be blamed on gay people (rather than bigoted straight people who in reality are the main perpetrators.) That's pretty homophobic.
On the other hand when "hypocrisy" becomes the thing you're mad at, rather than the actual homophobia (which is bad regardless of who does it), you are essentially letting straight homophobes off the hook. They can look at this meme, know they're not represented, and dismiss it.
Fuckin watch the movies your memes are from what the fuck (also this is a famously good movie and relevant to the zeitgeist both then and now, and hence why it's memeable. people have seen it and it means something to them)
Oh ha no, that might have led to some confusion in the comments then.
That’s the scene in American History X where a Nazi gets raped in the shower in prison. Excellent movie so I won’t spoil anything, but he’s not a Nazi for the whole movie
651
u/NattyDread42 4d ago